What did the court decide?

The court dismissed the petition because it was filed too late, so it did not rule on the underlying merits.

Who is affected by this decision?

Michael Ruiz is affected because his challenge to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation was dismissed; the Department prevailed on timeliness grounds.

Can this be appealed?

The opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331; absent such a motion, options to appeal are limited because the dismissal was for untimeliness.

Ruiz v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate

Docket 1D2025-1773

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

AdministrativeDismissed

Filed: May 6, 2026 · today
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Administrative
Disposition: Dismissed
Docket: 1D2025-1773

Petition for writ of certiorari in the First District Court of Appeal reviewing an administrative decision by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate.

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal dismissed Michael Ruiz’s petition for a writ of certiorari against the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate because the petition was filed after the deadline. The court relied on its prior decision in Adams v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission to support dismissal for untimeliness. The opinion is per curiam and unanimous, and it notes the judgment is not final until any timely motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure is resolved.

Issue Decided

Whether the petition for writ of certiorari was timely filed under controlling rules and precedent.

Court's Reasoning

The court concluded the petition was untimely and therefore subject to dismissal. It relied on established precedent (Adams v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n) that supports dismissing untimely petitions for certiorari. Because timeliness is a threshold jurisdictional requirement, the court did not address the petition’s substantive merits.

Authorities Cited

Adams v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission16 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
Florida Rules of Appellate ProcedureFla. R. App. P. 9.330, 9.331

Parties

Petitioner: Michael Ruiz
Respondent: Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate
Judge: Per Curiam (Lewis, Winokur, and Neff, JJ.)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-05-06

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing an authorized motion
If Ruiz believes there was excusable delay, he should promptly consult the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and consider filing a timely motion under Rules 9.330 or 9.331 to seek relief from the dismissal.
2
Consult appellate counsel
Ruiz should consult an attorney experienced in appellate and administrative law to evaluate grounds for relief, prepare any necessary motions, and assess further appeal options.
3
Preserve records and deadlines
Assemble all filing records, service proofs, and correspondence to document timelines and preserve evidence supporting any claim of excusable delay.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court dismissed the petition because it was filed too late, so it did not rule on the underlying merits.
Who is affected by this decision?: Michael Ruiz is affected because his challenge to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation was dismissed; the Department prevailed on timeliness grounds.
What happens next?: The dismissal stands unless Ruiz timely files an authorized motion under the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure arguing excusable delay or other grounds to reopen the filing period.
Can this be appealed?: The opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331; absent such a motion, options to appeal are limited because the dismissal was for untimeliness.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                         No. 1D2025-1773
                  _____________________________

MICHAEL RUIZ,

    Petitioner,

    v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
REGULATION, DIVISION OF REAL
ESTATE,

    Respondent.
                  _____________________________


Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.


                           May 6, 2026


PER CURIAM.

   DISMISSED as untimely filed. See Adams v. Fla.
Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 16 So. 3d 272, 272-73 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2009).
LEWIS, WINOKUR, and NEFF, JJ., concur.
              _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Michael Ruiz, pro se, Petitioner.

Brooke Elizabeth Adams, Chief Appellate Counsel, Matthew
Mears, Chief Appellate Counsel, and Andrew Fier, General
Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation,
Tallahassee, for Respondent.




                                    2